Once again, for those new to this blog site, at present there are 38 posts on the blog and each has its own set of comments. To read the comments you have to hit the word "Comments" at the beginning or end of the post. Somewhat confusing is that when you bring up the comments for a specific post it eliminates the other posts from the screen. To bring the other posts back up simply go back to the top of the page and click on Blog. Feel free to comment should you wish. No email address is required to make a comment so anonymity is strong. Due to some previous abuse of this right to anonymously comment, I have had to include an approval option, but I try to approve within 24 hours. To understand the development of the blog it is best to read it from the bottom post (Dr. Paul Kearney Case) up. One point of note here, to read the earliest posts you have to click on the word "<<Previous" at the very bottom of the posts available. Finally, for those just looking for a good summary of the Dr. Kearney case, simply scroll down to the previous 12/10/2016 post, and for social media developments on the Dr. Kearney situation I would encourage you to visit the excellent "Save Dr. Kearney Facebook Page":
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=save%20dr%20kearney
I want to wish everyone visiting this blog a Merry Christmas,
Happy Hanukkah or whatever you may find peace and joy in
Just when I thought I was through for the year, UK destroyed my serenity with another of their newsbreakers. I am of course talking about the series of articles that started with Ms. Linda Blackford’s Herald Leader December 16th article entitled “At UK, about 40 percent of harassment investigations end in firing”:
http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education/article121325588.html ,
This article, in part, discussed the sexual harassment case against Buck Ryan, an Associate Professor in the School of Journalism and Media. It was stated in this article that Mr. Ryan was disciplined for singing a modified version of the Beach Boys’ song “California Girls” at a meeting he attended in China.
The next day (December 17th) the Herald Leader published an OP-ED article entitled: “UK prof: Singing a Beach Boys’ tune got me punished for ‘sexual misconduct”, authored by Mr. Buck Ryan:
http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article121505232.html.
In this article Mr. Ryan states that when he went to investigate the complaints against him in an open records request he received a 2-page letter denying his request. Furthermore, the dean who issued his punishment never talked to him about it but rather simply sent him a letter. Finally, when Mr. Ryan asked about his right to due process he was told:
“There is no constitutional right to represent the University of Kentucky abroad. Nor is there a constitutional right to teach a particular class. Accordingly, the University has no obligation to provide you with due process.”
This led to 2 articles on December 19th. The first was an article by Kristine Guerra in the Washington Post entitled: “A Kentucky professor says singing a Beach Boys song got him in trouble for sexual misconduct allegations”:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/12/19/a-kentucky-professor-says-singing-a-beach-boys-song-got-him-in-trouble-for-sexual-misconduct-allegations/?utm_term=.785592f7159c.
This article was very similar to the one above concerning the allegations against Mr. Ryan. The significance is of course the fact that it is in the Washington Post. Meaning once again, as with the James Harwood sexual harassment case and the university suing the student newspaper, the university is going national, but for all the wrong reasons.
The second article was by Linda Blackford in the Herald Leader entitled: “UK faculty committee holds special meeting as story on accused professor goes nationwide": http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education/article121871548.html.
This article relates the meeting of a special council of the University Senate that met to discuss the way in which Mr. Ryan’s case was handled, and whether Mr. Ryan was afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the charges against him. A heavily redacted letter from the Title IX office was presented that says Mr. Ryan did this and that, to which Mr. Ryan claims the statements made were “outrageous” and “unsubstantiated”. He also stated that: “Never once has an administrator talked to me about any complaints”.
The above mentioned University Senate meeting and the newspaper articles reporting the university’s attitude towards due process and faculty rights, precipitated this December 19th Memorandum (see Memo) authored by the General Council Mr. Thro and his Associate Ms. Deaton. This document discusses an “Overview of Due Process in University Sexual Misconduct Disciplinary Proceedings”. I can only guess that they pulled this from the archives, because from what I can garner from reading this document, it has little to do with respect to the concerns being discussed in the University Senate meeting and these newspaper articles. Although for the sake of the Buck Ryan fiasco discussed above, they awkwardly stuck in references to the Crosby v. Capilouto case, what this Memorandum primarily discusses is due process, preponderance of evidence and the role an attorney plays with respect to resolving issues of sexual assault, stalking and dating violence as they might pertain to students being reprimanded for these crimes. I may be wrong, but I would have to believe this might differ substantially for university staff, faculty and tenured faculty.
On the other hand, if they are trying to use this as a template for how they view due process in general, Dr. Kearney’s lawyer I am sure found it interesting. The principles that:
“The individuals who investigate the allegation must not be involved in the decision to prosecute, the determination of guilt, or the appellate review. The individuals who determine whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings or whether to negotiate some sort of “plea bargain” must not be involved in the investigation or the adjudication of guilt”,
were totally disregarded in the Dr. Kearney matter, not to mention any other semblance of due process. When you put together a committee of people, many, if not all, have potential conflicts of interest, and you hold a trial and send forth a career death sentence in the absence of the accused or representation for the accused, the simple observation that they also used the investigators to determine guilt seems rather trivial. I think if you read through this you will find other statements that were disregarded in the Dr. Kearney vendetta, e.g. statements like, “Due process requires a presumption of innocence” and “the accused has a right to be present for all significant portions of the hearing”.
Then, in an attempt do to some damage control, Mr. Blanton, in the December 20th edition of the Herald Leader, authored an OP-ED piece entitled: “Professor’s story about sexual misconduct complaint off-key”:
http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article121979554.html .
In it Mr. Blanton basically goes on the defensive and says we will release everything Mr. Ryan is requesting from his personnel file (redacted of course) if Mr. Ryan waives his personal privacy rights. I can only interpret this statement from University of Kentucky representative Mr. Blanton to mean that it is University of Kentucky policy that anyone who wishes to obtain information from their confidential personnel file will be required to agree to permit the university to release that information to the whole world. Scarry isn't it? Even with this, the bottom line here is of course, they can produce a redacted he/she said document, but Mr. Ryan would probably only get to face his accusers if he sues the university. I am sure Mr. Blanton and the university lawyers are well aware that an associate professor at UK cannot afford to sue the eight lawyers and endless taxpayer derived pot of money the university can throw at him. As we have seen in the Dr. Kearney case and the many other lawsuits the university currently has ongoing, the university lawyers heavily rely on this tactic of using the endless resources and taxpayer money to drag out litigation in hopes of draining the finances of their opponent. I can think of no other explanation for doing this other than the fear that they would most probably lose their case if it ever went to court.
And just when you thought it was over, on December 20th up pops another national recognition of our troubles at UKy. This one, a College Fix article written by Jorin Burkhart at DePaul University, is entitled: “University says no due process owed to professor who sang ‘sexual’ Beach Boys song":
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/30449/.
Although this article is highly reiterative with respect to the other articles, it does contain the redacted letter that was tweeted to the College Fix by, one can only guess, Ms. Patty Bender, Assistant Vice President for Equal Opportunity. In it the charges against Mr. Ryan are laid out, as well as the sanctions. In reading this letter several things began to bother me. The first being the significant redactions. Although redactions are suppose to cover up information that could reveal the identities of targets of sexual predation/harassment, or perhaps even informants, they could also be used to cover up information that may not support the charges being made or may support perhaps a bias in the investigation. As we have seen in the Dr. Kearney case, the lawyers and administration at the university can be very manipulative with respect to the information they use in developing their case and justifying their sanctions.
Secondly, she/he/they (I can only guess faculty member(s) upset by Mr. Ryan’s trivialization of previous remarks concerning the song he sang) make the statement that she/he/they saw some girl walking “early one morning and she was wearing one of his UK shirts”. I guess one might ask; how did she/he/they even know for certain that it was Mr. Ryan’s UK shirt she was wearing? If this person is that intimate with respect to Mr. Ryan’s clothing you have to begin to question the objectivity of this witness. Furthermore, I can envision other explanations for someone borrowing a shirt other than the one implied here.
With the last statement in mind there is the observation that the contents of the letter would suggest that there were never any complaints filed by these students who she/he/they claim were inappropriately touched. One has to ask, was any attempt made to approach these purportedly inappropriately touched individuals and get their perspectives, or were the claims taken as gospel truths simply because these people said so? We have seen in the Dr. Kearney case the extreme measures that the university is willing to take against an individual based upon conviction by a jury, all of whom had potential conflicts of interest.
Finally, there is this mystery woman who claims that she has received “other complaints” from Shanghai University and Jilin University about Mr. Ryan’s behavior “unrelated to the ones being investigated here”. This is totally inappropriate in a letter of this nature. Either produce the evidence or do not include it. Hearsay is just that, hearsay, and its inclusion here suggests a totally biased individual adjudicating the case against Mr. Ryan.
The bottom line being, the university has made a documented claim that they are not required to provide faculty with due process. This is both an unfortunate and scary thought and/or attitude for an institution of higher learning. Furthermore, not only do they make this statement, but also, as we have seen in the Dr. Kearney case and now in the Mr. Ryan case, they actually live by this attitude. Sad to say, with the current administration and lawyers and their attitudes toward the 5th and 14th ammendments of our constitution and due process, it is kind of like you leave the United States once you start working at the University of Kentucky.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=save%20dr%20kearney
I want to wish everyone visiting this blog a Merry Christmas,
Happy Hanukkah or whatever you may find peace and joy in
Just when I thought I was through for the year, UK destroyed my serenity with another of their newsbreakers. I am of course talking about the series of articles that started with Ms. Linda Blackford’s Herald Leader December 16th article entitled “At UK, about 40 percent of harassment investigations end in firing”:
http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education/article121325588.html ,
This article, in part, discussed the sexual harassment case against Buck Ryan, an Associate Professor in the School of Journalism and Media. It was stated in this article that Mr. Ryan was disciplined for singing a modified version of the Beach Boys’ song “California Girls” at a meeting he attended in China.
The next day (December 17th) the Herald Leader published an OP-ED article entitled: “UK prof: Singing a Beach Boys’ tune got me punished for ‘sexual misconduct”, authored by Mr. Buck Ryan:
http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article121505232.html.
In this article Mr. Ryan states that when he went to investigate the complaints against him in an open records request he received a 2-page letter denying his request. Furthermore, the dean who issued his punishment never talked to him about it but rather simply sent him a letter. Finally, when Mr. Ryan asked about his right to due process he was told:
“There is no constitutional right to represent the University of Kentucky abroad. Nor is there a constitutional right to teach a particular class. Accordingly, the University has no obligation to provide you with due process.”
This led to 2 articles on December 19th. The first was an article by Kristine Guerra in the Washington Post entitled: “A Kentucky professor says singing a Beach Boys song got him in trouble for sexual misconduct allegations”:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/12/19/a-kentucky-professor-says-singing-a-beach-boys-song-got-him-in-trouble-for-sexual-misconduct-allegations/?utm_term=.785592f7159c.
This article was very similar to the one above concerning the allegations against Mr. Ryan. The significance is of course the fact that it is in the Washington Post. Meaning once again, as with the James Harwood sexual harassment case and the university suing the student newspaper, the university is going national, but for all the wrong reasons.
The second article was by Linda Blackford in the Herald Leader entitled: “UK faculty committee holds special meeting as story on accused professor goes nationwide": http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education/article121871548.html.
This article relates the meeting of a special council of the University Senate that met to discuss the way in which Mr. Ryan’s case was handled, and whether Mr. Ryan was afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the charges against him. A heavily redacted letter from the Title IX office was presented that says Mr. Ryan did this and that, to which Mr. Ryan claims the statements made were “outrageous” and “unsubstantiated”. He also stated that: “Never once has an administrator talked to me about any complaints”.
The above mentioned University Senate meeting and the newspaper articles reporting the university’s attitude towards due process and faculty rights, precipitated this December 19th Memorandum (see Memo) authored by the General Council Mr. Thro and his Associate Ms. Deaton. This document discusses an “Overview of Due Process in University Sexual Misconduct Disciplinary Proceedings”. I can only guess that they pulled this from the archives, because from what I can garner from reading this document, it has little to do with respect to the concerns being discussed in the University Senate meeting and these newspaper articles. Although for the sake of the Buck Ryan fiasco discussed above, they awkwardly stuck in references to the Crosby v. Capilouto case, what this Memorandum primarily discusses is due process, preponderance of evidence and the role an attorney plays with respect to resolving issues of sexual assault, stalking and dating violence as they might pertain to students being reprimanded for these crimes. I may be wrong, but I would have to believe this might differ substantially for university staff, faculty and tenured faculty.
On the other hand, if they are trying to use this as a template for how they view due process in general, Dr. Kearney’s lawyer I am sure found it interesting. The principles that:
“The individuals who investigate the allegation must not be involved in the decision to prosecute, the determination of guilt, or the appellate review. The individuals who determine whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings or whether to negotiate some sort of “plea bargain” must not be involved in the investigation or the adjudication of guilt”,
were totally disregarded in the Dr. Kearney matter, not to mention any other semblance of due process. When you put together a committee of people, many, if not all, have potential conflicts of interest, and you hold a trial and send forth a career death sentence in the absence of the accused or representation for the accused, the simple observation that they also used the investigators to determine guilt seems rather trivial. I think if you read through this you will find other statements that were disregarded in the Dr. Kearney vendetta, e.g. statements like, “Due process requires a presumption of innocence” and “the accused has a right to be present for all significant portions of the hearing”.
Then, in an attempt do to some damage control, Mr. Blanton, in the December 20th edition of the Herald Leader, authored an OP-ED piece entitled: “Professor’s story about sexual misconduct complaint off-key”:
http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article121979554.html .
In it Mr. Blanton basically goes on the defensive and says we will release everything Mr. Ryan is requesting from his personnel file (redacted of course) if Mr. Ryan waives his personal privacy rights. I can only interpret this statement from University of Kentucky representative Mr. Blanton to mean that it is University of Kentucky policy that anyone who wishes to obtain information from their confidential personnel file will be required to agree to permit the university to release that information to the whole world. Scarry isn't it? Even with this, the bottom line here is of course, they can produce a redacted he/she said document, but Mr. Ryan would probably only get to face his accusers if he sues the university. I am sure Mr. Blanton and the university lawyers are well aware that an associate professor at UK cannot afford to sue the eight lawyers and endless taxpayer derived pot of money the university can throw at him. As we have seen in the Dr. Kearney case and the many other lawsuits the university currently has ongoing, the university lawyers heavily rely on this tactic of using the endless resources and taxpayer money to drag out litigation in hopes of draining the finances of their opponent. I can think of no other explanation for doing this other than the fear that they would most probably lose their case if it ever went to court.
And just when you thought it was over, on December 20th up pops another national recognition of our troubles at UKy. This one, a College Fix article written by Jorin Burkhart at DePaul University, is entitled: “University says no due process owed to professor who sang ‘sexual’ Beach Boys song":
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/30449/.
Although this article is highly reiterative with respect to the other articles, it does contain the redacted letter that was tweeted to the College Fix by, one can only guess, Ms. Patty Bender, Assistant Vice President for Equal Opportunity. In it the charges against Mr. Ryan are laid out, as well as the sanctions. In reading this letter several things began to bother me. The first being the significant redactions. Although redactions are suppose to cover up information that could reveal the identities of targets of sexual predation/harassment, or perhaps even informants, they could also be used to cover up information that may not support the charges being made or may support perhaps a bias in the investigation. As we have seen in the Dr. Kearney case, the lawyers and administration at the university can be very manipulative with respect to the information they use in developing their case and justifying their sanctions.
Secondly, she/he/they (I can only guess faculty member(s) upset by Mr. Ryan’s trivialization of previous remarks concerning the song he sang) make the statement that she/he/they saw some girl walking “early one morning and she was wearing one of his UK shirts”. I guess one might ask; how did she/he/they even know for certain that it was Mr. Ryan’s UK shirt she was wearing? If this person is that intimate with respect to Mr. Ryan’s clothing you have to begin to question the objectivity of this witness. Furthermore, I can envision other explanations for someone borrowing a shirt other than the one implied here.
With the last statement in mind there is the observation that the contents of the letter would suggest that there were never any complaints filed by these students who she/he/they claim were inappropriately touched. One has to ask, was any attempt made to approach these purportedly inappropriately touched individuals and get their perspectives, or were the claims taken as gospel truths simply because these people said so? We have seen in the Dr. Kearney case the extreme measures that the university is willing to take against an individual based upon conviction by a jury, all of whom had potential conflicts of interest.
Finally, there is this mystery woman who claims that she has received “other complaints” from Shanghai University and Jilin University about Mr. Ryan’s behavior “unrelated to the ones being investigated here”. This is totally inappropriate in a letter of this nature. Either produce the evidence or do not include it. Hearsay is just that, hearsay, and its inclusion here suggests a totally biased individual adjudicating the case against Mr. Ryan.
The bottom line being, the university has made a documented claim that they are not required to provide faculty with due process. This is both an unfortunate and scary thought and/or attitude for an institution of higher learning. Furthermore, not only do they make this statement, but also, as we have seen in the Dr. Kearney case and now in the Mr. Ryan case, they actually live by this attitude. Sad to say, with the current administration and lawyers and their attitudes toward the 5th and 14th ammendments of our constitution and due process, it is kind of like you leave the United States once you start working at the University of Kentucky.